Madras High Court
VENKATARAMAN,KRISHNASWAMY REDDY
Thenappa Chettiar - Appellant
Versus
Andiyappa Chettiar - Respondent
Decided On : 11/09/1970
PROMISSORY NOTE - STAMP ACT - ART. 49 - SUIT ON ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION - MAINTAINABILITY - A promissory note payable otherwise than on demand falls under clause (b) of Art. 49 of Sch. I to the Stamp Act and is insufficiently stamped. In such a case, the suit can still be maintained on the original cause of action.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit to recover a debt of Rs. 15,000 from the defendant, evidenced by a promissory note executed by the defendant. The defendant admitted executing the promissory note but claimed that it was insufficiently stamped and therefore inadmissible in evidence. The trial court dismissed the suit on the preliminary ground that the suit was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the promissory note was a promissory note within the definition of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore also a promissory note under Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act. It further held that the promissory note was payable otherwise than on demand and therefore fell under clause (b) of Art. 49 of Sch. I to the Stamp Act, and was insufficiently stamped. However, the court also held that the plaintiff could still fall back on the original cause of action, namely, the prior indebtedness of the defendant.
Issues: 1. Whether the promissory note was a promissory note within the meaning of the Stamp Act? 2. Whether the promissory note was payable on demand? 3. Whether the suit was maintainable on the original cause of action?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the promissory note was a promissory note within the meaning of the Stamp Act because it contained an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person or to the bearer of the instrument. 2. The court held that the promissory note was not payable on demand because a period of two years for payment was specified. 3. The court held that the suit was maintainable on the original cause of action because the promissory note itself contained recitals showing that the debt had sprung up even at an anterior point of time.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the suit for trial on the remaining issues.
VENKATARAMAN, J. :- This is an appeal by the plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, on a preliminary point that the suit is not maintainable. The allegations in the plaint are, briefly, that the plaintiff's father was running a money-lending business at Colombo under the name and style of A. S. (Original in Tamil omitted - Ed.) Moneylending Firm, that the defendant was an agent in that firm and was also having dealings of his own and was carrying on his business. On 16-6-1961, when the accounts of the defendant were taken, the sum owed by the defendant to the plaintiff's father's firm was settled at Rs. 15,000. The defendant agreed to pay the said debt after the expiry of two years, and, in view of the close relationship between the parties, a low rate of interest was fixed, namely, two annas per Rs. 100 per month. To evidence the agreement he executed what the plaintiff styles as a 'voucher'. After the death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff became entitled to collect the debt and he, therefore, filed the suit on the original cause of action and consideration.
2. The defendant admits that he supervised the money-lending firm at Colombo carried on under the name and style of A. S. Money-lending firm till 1957, but he states that he never had any dealings with the said firm. The plaintiff's father was the elder sister's husband of the defendant and the defendant was under the control of the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's father was not able to send money from Colombo to India. He had given instructions to the defendant to send money from Ceylon in black market stealthily. When the defendant returned to India, the plaintiff's father was under the impression that the defendant could have misappropriated a portion of the black money, and, therefore, made him execute the document mentioned in the plaint. He contended further that the document was a promissory note not sufficiently stamped and therefore, a suit could not lie on the basis of the promissory note.
3. One of the issues framed was Issue No. 3 to the following effect: "Is the suit as framed on original cause of action and transaction not maintainable?" It is stated in the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge that by consent of the parties that issue was taken up for preliminary discussion. On Issue No. 3 as a preliminary issue, the learned Judge held that the document embodied the terms of the contract between the parties, that it was a promissory note insufficiently stamped, that it could not be admitted at all and that it was not open to the plaintiff to fall back on the original cause of action. He purported to follow the decision of the Full Bench in Perumal Chettiar v. Kamakshiammal, ILR (1938) Mad 933 : (AIR 1938 Mad 785 (FB)). In the result, he dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal.
4. The relevant portion of the document may now be quoted: (original in Tamil omitted-Ed.) It may thus be translated:
"I have already received Rs. 15000 from your Colombo A. S. shop for doing business of my own. I shall pay it after two years on demand by you with interest at two annas per month per Rs. 100 to you or to your order and receive back this promissory note."
It is stamped with revenue stamp of 25 p. (15 plus 10 p.). The first question which has to be considered is whether the instrument is a promissory note at all. There can be no doubt that it is a promissory note for the purpose of the Stamp Act. The definition of promissory note in Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act is: " 'Promissory note' means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
It also includes a note promising the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen."
Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, defines promissory note thus:
"A 'promissory note' is an instrument in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.